The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I disagree the fact that Taiwan has only partial international recognition should be mentioned in the first sentence. On the other hand, an alternative I would be okay with is a neutrally written sentence briefly noting its complex political status at the end of the first paragraph, before we dive into the history and only address the issue in the third paragraph. Thoughts? wctaiwan (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can say without qualification that it is a sovereign state, when that is such a highly disputed claim. WP:NPOV demands that we give WP:DUE weight to both POVs. Whether that means we say "disputed state", "partially recognized state" or something else, I'm open to discuss. But claiming that it is a sovereign state without explaining that their independence is disputed by most of the world doesn't seem to be a NPOV way of presenting the facts. TDL (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, the current state of affairs is [[sovereign state|state]]. The main issue I have with some of the wordings, especially ones like "disputed", is that they often present a misleading picture of Taiwan--China is politically powerful, so Taiwan has very little official recognition as a state, but in every other manner it functions like one, with an elected government and its own quasi-embassies. Last time this debate took place, some people didn't like the usage of the word "sovereign", others didn't like "disputed" or "de-facto independent", so a compromised was reached to just use "state". wctaiwan (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, but if we link to sovereign state then we are claiming that it is a sovereign state. In fact, that link violates WP:EGG so we need to either stop hiding the "sovereign" or change the link to State (polity).
The reason why the ROC is disputed is of secondary importance. Our job is to report facts as they are, not as they could be if China wasn't so powerful. Everyone, including both the PRC and ROC, agree that there is a dispute so I don't see how this is misleading. All of your arguments could be applied to say Republic of Kosovo (which is recognized by 5x as many states), but that article uses " partially recognised state". Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has similar wording. TDL (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This source says of states such as Taiwan: "'partially recognized' states would therefore be a more accurate description of these entities than 'de facto state' or 'unrecognized state'. But 'contested state' is an even better term inasmuch as it neatly captures the full political and legal problems faced by these territories." Any of these terms (de facto, partially recognized, disputed, contested) works for me, but again, asserting as a fact that it is a sovereign state without any explanation that this claim is widely disputed by other states is very misleading and does not give WP:DUE weight to both POVs. Any willingness to compromise here, or do I need to seek WP:DR? TDL (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept either or both of the following: 1. de-linking "state" to avoid any appearance of weaselling (though really, the limited recognition doesn't really change the fact that in practice, the ROC has full sovereignty over its actual territory), 2. as I proposed above, adding a neutrally worded sentence at the end of the first paragraph to give greater prominence (but still not first-sentence, most-important-thing-about-the-subject kind of prominence) to the issue. Alternatively, if you could get clear consensus among at least a few other long-term editors for your proposal, I'm certainly not going to try to block it single-handedly. wctaiwan (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't broke. Why change it? We've had discussions in the past about the wording within the lead paragraph, and the current state is a compromise between a bunch of differing viewpoints. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
(Note: Now that I realise, a few months down the track and the above comment can be misinterpreted. Back in September, I was in support of User:Wctaiwan's points, after another user attempted to make various changes to the lead paragraph.) --benlisquareT•C•E 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording is problematic. The claim that Taiwan is a state is a "seriously contested assertion", in the words of WP:NPOV, and therefore we cannot assert it. I would suggest instead the wording "de facto independent country". We could then say in the second sentence that its de jure status is disputed. Neljack (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It was a compromise made some time ago within a heavy contested topic, between two sides with strongly differing opinions. One side preferred to state that Taiwan was "an independent country", whilst the other side preferred "a largely unrecognised, disputed political entity", with strong emphasis on the adjectives used by both sides. Though, I do have to say that consensus isn't permanent, and can change, and so if people think that the status quo needs to be changed, another WP:RFC can be started. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of "partially recognised". It is such an important fact that it ought to have been left in. The "Republic of China" does not exist from the perspective of countries representing over 99% of the world's population. That is a fundamental fact and the first sentence shouldn't mask the complexity. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If "partially recognised" is going to be put in for Republic of China, it needs to also be put in for People's Republic of China. The latter has no diplomatic recognition with over 20 countries which is still about 10% of the commonly recognized nations. That's as much of a fundamental fact as what you state. States with limited recognition article includes PRC as well as ROC, among others. Furthermore, a large number of the countries officially recognizing PRC have relations with ROC in all but name, whereas there is very little unofficial contact of that sort with PRC for countries that recognize ROC.
The current form of simply "state" is what I find most neutral, as after all, people from diverse ethnic and national backgrounds (meaning, different official stances on ROC) read this article. Abstractematics (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. There is a huge difference between an entity that is recognised by 90% of its peers, and one that is recognised by 10% of its peers. The current form of "state", especially linking to "sovereign state", is not at all neutral, and while may be the case de facto, is definitely not the case de jure to the vast majority of the world. The opening paragraph needs to recognise this distinction, and unequivocally qualify that Taiwan is not recognised officially as a sovereign state by the vast majority of sovereign states and other international bodies. Alkenrinnstet (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That's already stated in the description of the opening and the body. Link to political status of Taiwan is littered throughout Taiwan-related articles. You don't need to shove it into the definition. That's POV, one against those nations that do recognize ROC - and in fact do not recognize PRC. Abstractematics (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Using the same approach we should also write in the lead that the State of Israel is partially recognised. No way...
The current wording for this article is appropriate. However the condition of being sovereign is only partially linked to recognition. A country could be theoretically recognised by all UN members minus one country, the one occupying it. In this case would be not sovereign. On the other hand, a country with very limited official recognition can be sovereign and this is the case of the ROC.--Silvio1973 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I think what first comes to mind would be Cambodia, which for many years had the ousted government recognised by the UN and majority of countries, and the occupying regime unrecognised. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. Indeed, it was recognised but not sovereign. In the case of the ROC it's exactly the opposite. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, please don't equate states with their population. "A group of countries that make up 99% of the world's population" does not mean 99% of the world's population actually agrees with it. Plenty of people in those countries dissent; it's entirely possible for a government of a country to say one thing and the majority of the population to say another. I live in the United States, which reluctantly recognizes People's Republic of China, but I do not agree at all. Furthermore, we're talking about international relations. In international relations we go by state-per-state count, not population. We do not think less of smaller countries just because they have smaller population. We treat them as equals. Abstractematics (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of many policies that 99 per cent of the world's population would agree on. One China included. I've never equated populations and governments in that way. It is simply a remarkable objective fact that Governments representing over 99 percent of the world's population, indeed nearly 90 per cent of its states, don't recognise the ROC. International relations are between States, agreed. And it is a fact that only a small minority of the World's states, all small and usually hoping to benefit from handouts, recognise the ROC. This all makes the partially recognised tag very appropriate here. Comparisons with Israel are pretty silly. Israel is recognised by the vast majority of countries and all the leading powers. Similarly, the PRC's recognition is overwhelming too. The ROC is in a different league...If it partially recognised, that is putting it at its best. Largely unrecognised, would probably be more accurate and plain. I suppose politics is probably the root of this discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
One more thing, my views aren't about thinking less of any one or any state; just that Wikipedia should be accurate and unbiased. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It may be true that the current administrations of a group of countries officially recognize PRC and they happen to have 99% of the population, emphases intended. Whether that statistic is relevant to this discussion is another matter. It's just like with General Assembly Resolution 68/262. Populations should be left out unless sources make actual use of them (or argue against doing so). To use the population count as an argument is an OR synthesis, as are words like "handouts".
And I want to say that "largely unrecognised" phrasing is too biased in favor of the majority. If 20 countries recognize ROC then it's a recognized country; someone sovereign recognizes it. "Unrecognised" should only be used when actually unrecognised. On the flip side, it would be fair to apply similar treatment to Israel because vast majority is still partial. Basically, we shouldn't assign binary qualities solely based on size of quantities.
To further underscore my point, NGOs and other groups such as Freedom House and Economist Intelligence Unit treat Taiwan much like any other country, sometimes more so than other states with limited recognition. Also, when a host country or organization invites ROC as the sole China, the PRC-recognizing states abide by that. For instance, the funeral held at Vatican City. These are global meetings, not just meetings among those 20 countries recognizing ROC.
And I think that's the real accurate and unbiased approach. Instead of a simple binary stance on who is recognized or not, we should be more focused on the fact that a contention does exist. It's enough that any political article on Taiwan inevitably leads to its political status. It would not be fair to treat PRC as having perfectly fine diplomacy when the contention is still there for its own status.Abstractematics (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, we disagree on basics. If about 90% of the world's states don't recognise a polity as a state but about 10% do, I think, in a case like that, it's appropriate to classify the polity as what it is: "partially recognised". You don't. By the way, we were only discussing that wording: "partially recognised". Above you got into a discussion of "largely unrecognised". No one has proposed that description. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I replied to you about that because you brought it up first.
Anyway, my original argument was that while ROC is partially recognized, so is PRC. Yet PRC is labeled "sovereign state" with no apparent signs of contested diplomacy. I mean, how big does a minority of countries have to be before you see it as relevant? 22?32?109? It's arbitrary, so it's best to go with the consensus. And the consensus, as Alkenrinnstet already stated, is to just call it a state or country without POV-leaning qualifiers, and proceed to talk about its international status in the description. Abstractematics (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Abstractematics - For clarity, are you against the words "partially recognised" as a description for any place that claims to be a sovereign state including Abkhazia, Turkish North Cyprus, South Ossetia, Transnestria and Nagorno-Karabakh etc.? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There are three options when it comes to this: all, none, or consensus. As I mentioned, the consensus here seems to be to leave the opening statement simple and defer the explanation of the status to the rest of the paragraph.
Personally I don't think the qualifier is necessary in the opening sentence if both the lead and politics/foreign relations sections & articles adequately explain the international standing. (And it's the same reason why I think the article should remain as "Taiwan".)Abstractematics (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"The consensus here seems to be to leave the opening statement simple and defer the explanation of the status to the rest of the paragraph." I don't agree with that at all. The opening statement is not "simple". It includes a positive and unqualified explanation that the ROC is a "state". Would you support taking out the reference then to "state" if you'd like something simple, consensus orientated and that leaves explanations of status to the rest of the paragraph etc.?
Otherwise, given that you are opposed to any place that claims to be a state being described in a leded as "partially recognised", I appreciate your principled stance. Although I don't share that stance, it makes sense to me, is logical and defensible. Basically, we disagree but I don't think you are "wrong". Have you made submissions on the articles of any of the other countries that are affected by this practice (like Abkhazia and North Cyprus and all the others I mentioned) asking that they have the word "partially recognised" taken out. Or is this just one article you have taken a special interest in and decided to champion an inconsistent approach for? Obviously it's not any one's job to contribute on all articles etc. but I am curious again. Obviously the approach being taken here on this page is not consistent with the approach taken on the others, I think all of them. I wouldn't blame you of course if you are not interested in the other articles as much. I am not as interested in North Cyprus as I am in the ROC. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the problem calling it a state. A state with limited recognition is, by definition, a state. The purpose of the rest of the paragraph is to explain what kind of state it is. Abstractematics (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Taiwan is a lovely island surrounded by water....If you'd said that, I think it would have been equally irrelevant to my questions. I guess you are bored with questions. That's fair enough. With me, you can always just say as much! All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
John Smith's mentioned about the name and referred to Myanmar. JS seemed to think Burma is better known than Myanmar and so the former should be used. I disagree. This is a quasi encyclopedia. It's about sharing knowledge, not misinformation. We know what that country's name is. We should use it. There is no Burma any more. There is still a Republic of China and my point about the ridiculousness of discussing a Taiwan army during WW2 hasn't been addressed. Instead some one said that they went to the lengths of creating a separate article for the ROC for an earlier period....Now that isn't logical. We don't do that for other countries. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, have consideration for the productivity of this. The only concern of many of these people here is to blindly follow the press and what they deem to be reliable sources. Until the press changes its habits or reunification rightfully occurs, no discussion on the naming of this page will lead anywhere. Enough is enough."My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It was a process of discussion and deliberation that led to the recent change to rename this article "Taiwan" from ROC where it had been for years. So we can talk about "Taiwan during WW2" etc. (clarity there etc?). So yes, I have consideration for the productivity of this sort of discussion. It produced a major change recently. No good reason a similar discussion couldn't result with a change back. Any way, final thought: "productivity" evokes thoughts of something like a factory. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't we handle it something like how we handle Turkey during World War I? Simply state that at that time the state now called Taiwan was known as the Republic of China and use that name in those sections. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Frenchmalawi, it is basically wrong to mix these two concepts. 1. Taiwan is just part of ROC, there are many islands are still under control of ROC. 2. ROC has never given up their rights for mainland. 3. Ironically, based on ROC's constitution, its capital is still Nan Jing. 4. If you could check Chinese version ROC page and Taiwan page, you would find out how much different they are. The truth is out there, Taiwan is a samll island, never was and never to be a country. --WWWXXX(talk) 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A consensus here, WP:COMMONAME, and masses of people all around the world disagree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As the old saying goes, what happens on Chinese wikipedia stays on Chinese wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox(talk) 09:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
is December 7
The government of the Republic of China moves from Nanking to Taipei, Taiwan. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TLA3x ♭ → ♮ 21:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Question, if moving the article to "Taiwan" was such a good idea......why can't we say: "1949: The government of Taiwan moves from Nanking to Taipei, Taiwan?". Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The infobox on the right hand side of the article contains such an information:
The ROC government retreated to Taipei due to Chinese Civil War. 1 October 1949/December 10, 1949
Hi User:Vanjagenije. Of course I agree with you. But we call this article "Taiwan" now so it flows from that decision that we can say silly things like "1949: The government of Taiwan moves from Nanking to Taipei, Taiwan". This is what the consensus is basically saying. Not making a distinction between the ROC and Taiwan. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Reason: This article states that the country is officially Republic of China, which is true, but not true for most of its history. The way the article is now, a reader would likely be misled, by quick reading or just glancing table of contents thinking Taiwan just IS officially called ROC. The history subheading does not clearly indicate take over in 1945 as a distinct start of administration. The ROC should be its own article with Taiwan being a distinct topic, or otherwise should be a redirect to ROC article since it's not a "real" name for the country but an AKA alias, other than the island itself. Also I'm proposing the Republic of China (1912–1949) to be merged to Republic of China. See related discussion at Talk:Republic of China (1912–49)#Merger proposal. This way, Taiwan can have its own article describing the various histories, rulers, and geography apart of ROC. Taiwan Island which now redirects to Geography of Taiwan doesn't make much sense. It should include all relevant info, history and governance as well, except the details of government should be taken to the ROC article (under subheading in History -- Rule on Taiwan) covering 1945 onward. Mistakefinder (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
oppose, per the previous consensus at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20, in particular our policy on common names. The rationale given actually supports the current arrangement. Yes, the Republic of China is commonly called Taiwan now, hence it redirects to it. What it was in the past is part of its history, covered here, in History of Taiwan, and in articles on particular areas of its history.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Request the proposal be immediately rescinded by original poster - No decision on Wikipedia is final, but the decision to have this article be move to the title "Taiwan" was perhaps the most thoroughly discussed move in WP history. There was careful arbitration, requests for comments, and the entire community was involved. The move was not done suddenly or carelessly and it was the result of years of continued discussion. I don't expect you to read the entire discussion since it is incredibly long, but please look at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20 and read some of the Final Closing Statement at the top of the page endorsed by three impartial admins. You are welcome to reopen any discussion, but please only do so if you think that you have information which is likely to alter the existing consensus. - Metal lunchbox(talk) 11:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
There have been many discussions. WP:COMMONNAME won the day. It's Taiwan. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes but is the official name of the nation "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as he is insisting along with his accusations that I'm a PRC nationalist vandal?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No idea about the official name. Most people neither know nor care about the official name of most countries. But the allegations are normal. All of us who argued for the name Taiwan for this article had such allegations thrown at us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Then could you back me up and tell him to shut the fuck up? He's going on and on about "this is the 103rd year of the ROC being independent" now and refusing to acknowledge I'm a white boy from New York.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 please help me with this fuckwit before I lose it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's established that this article should use the name "Taiwan" for the topic, but in the discussion that lead to the move while there was discussion about other pages, there was no clear consensus formed about the language that should be used in other pages. The same logic of the move applies in most cases, and so the term "Taiwan" should be used in a similar manner across other pages, but simply citing the discussion is not a way to conclude the matter. On pages where there is clearly some controversy about the wording, it will have to be decided through clear discussion on that page, not this one. - Metal lunchbox(talk) 16:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Wikipedia doesn't need that many agonising shitfights. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not advocating that every page which mentions Taiwan should have a naming debate identical in tone and length to the ones that have taken place here. Instead, I'm suggesting that sometimes, on a page like Taipei it may be necessary to have a discussion to decide whether the community agrees that the logic of the move applies there as well. Sometimes those discussion will devolve into political nonsense and name-calling. I'd rather avoid all that, too, but That's my reading of policy, WP culture, and the oft-cited discussion at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. - Metal lunchbox(talk) 09:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The only way I could agree with that would be if such discussions were constantly overseen by a captive, independent Admin, who would instantly intervene with severe consequences for any of the aforementioned political nonsense and name-calling. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No one is asking you to consent to the discussion. I'm just summarizing the situation. - Metal lunchbox(talk) 12:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
...in a very unrealistic and impractical way. the dramas that surround these article need to be stopped, not encouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
How about this, let's stick to what you, me, and an important majority of this community agree on: we should use the term "Taiwan" for the country and say that it's "officially known as the Republic of China" when necessary. That applies to this article and most Taiwan-related articles. How exactly related conflicts will be avoided or resolved is a matter that perhaps we have a small disagreement about. In either case, editors on this page should pay attention to Taipei, Holy See and other Taiwan-related articles to deal with name-related POV pushing efficiently. I hope that you are right, that drama about such matters can be somehow avoided. - Metal lunchbox(talk) 13:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should use the term "Taiwan" for the country and say that it's "officially known as the Republic of China" when necessary. I have never sought anything else. I just don't want to see idiotic allegations of communist editing thrown around again, anywhere. That's quite unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)